1. Background and recruitment of experts
Each year, the Agency evaluates training programmes submitted for accreditation or renewal of accreditation, at public and private universities and higher education institutions not affiliated with universities. For the 2019 evaluation round, the report’s introduction mentions 503 programmes submitted for evaluation. To support the round, a new call for applications was organised to recruit experts from different disciplines and expand the Agency’s database.
2. Public higher education programmes by university
The report distributes 315 public higher education programmes among universities and institutions not affiliated with universities.
3. Public-sector programmes by degree type
Breakdown of public-sector programmes by principal degrees and training categories, expressed as percentages.
| Degree type | Share shown |
|---|---|
| Engineering degree | 26 % |
| Specialised Master’s degree | 26 % |
| University Diploma in Technology | 14 % |
| Diploma from the National Schools of Commerce and Management | 10 % |
| Professional Bachelor’s degree | 9 % |
| Master’s degree in Science and Technology | 6 % |
| Bachelor’s degree in Fundamental Studies | 3 % |
| Diploma in Arts and Crafts | 2 % |
| Two preparatory years | 1 % |
| Bachelor’s degree in Science and Technology | 1 % |
4. Public-sector programmes by disciplinary field
| Disciplinary field | Number of programmes | Sector share |
|---|---|---|
| Science and technology | 127 | 41 % |
| Arts, humanities and social sciences | 92 | 29 % |
| Law, economics and social sciences | 92 | 29 % |
| Health sciences | 4 | 1 % |
| Total | 315 | 100 % |
Science and technology account for 41% of public-sector programmes, followed by arts and humanities and law, economics and social sciences (29% each), then health sciences (1%).
5. Private higher education programmes by institution
The report distributes 199 private higher education programmes among private universities and other institutions in the sector.
6. Private-sector programmes by duration and degree type
Breakdown of private-sector programmes by length of study, training cycles and pathways after the baccalaureate.
| Cycle or programme type | Share shown |
|---|---|
| Two years following three years of post-baccalaureate studies | 49 % |
| Three years after the baccalaureate | 29 % |
| Three years after two preparatory years | 9 % |
| Doctoral studies | 4 % |
| Five years after the baccalaureate | 3 % |
| Two preparatory years | 3 % |
| Six years after the baccalaureate | 2 % |
7. Private-sector programmes by disciplinary field
| Disciplinary field | Number of programmes | Sector share |
|---|---|---|
| Law, economics and social sciences | 91 | 46 % |
| Science and technology | 59 | 30 % |
| Health sciences | 38 | 19 % |
| Arts, humanities and social sciences | 11 | 5 % |
| Total | 199 | 100 % |
Law, economics and social sciences account for 46% of private-sector programmes, followed by science and technology (30%), health sciences (19%), and arts, humanities and social sciences (5%).
8. Results of the expert assessment process
Public higher education
| Assessment or status | Number of programmes |
|---|---|
| Favourable opinion | 241 |
| Unfavourable opinion | 48 |
| No response received by the Agency | 14 |
| Programmes not evaluated | 6 |
| Total stated in the report | 315 |
Private higher education
| Assessment or status | Number of programmes |
|---|---|
| Favourable opinion | 134 |
| Unfavourable opinion | 46 |
| No response received by the Agency | 14 |
| Programmes not evaluated | 5 |
| Total | 199 |
In the public sector, the six programmes not evaluated concerned institutions not affiliated with universities, notably because of the absence of pedagogical standards documents or non-payment of expert assessment fees. In the private sector, the five programmes not evaluated were reported as cases of unpaid expert assessment fees.
9. Main observations addressed to institutions
- Some institutions submitted accreditation applications that did not meet all the required conditions.
- Certain programmes lack qualified and specialised human resources.
- Some proposed programmes combine disparate specialisations that lack coherence.
- The required logistical resources are lacking in certain technically oriented programmes.
- Most doctoral programme applications submitted did not comply with certain specific regulatory provisions.